California OAH special education order · May 27, 2026
Order Determining Due Process Complaint Sufficient
OAH Case No. 2026050580 · ALJ Tiffany Gilmartin
OAH found Student's complaint sufficient, rejecting Irvine's argument that issue three failed to identify specific IEPs, because the issue clearly challenged Student's current 2025-2026 placement.
Summary
Irvine filed a notice of insufficiency arguing that Student's issue three did not identify the specific IEPs being challenged. OAH did not consider Student's response. The ALJ found that issue three challenged Student's current placement during the 2025-2026 school year. That gave Irvine enough notice to respond and take part in a resolution session and mediation, so the complaint was found sufficient and all dates were confirmed.
Why it matters
A complaint does not always have to name specific IEP dates if it clearly identifies the placement and time period being challenged. OAH reads complaints liberally and asks only whether the district has enough notice to prepare.
Key authority cited
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(7)(A)
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(c)
- Sen. Rep. No. 108-185
- Escambia County Bd. of Educ. v. Benton (S.D. Ala. 2005) 406 F.Supp.2d 1248
- Alexandra R. v. Brookline School Dist. (D.N.H. 2009) 2009 WL 2957991
- 71 FR 46,540-46541, 46699
Topics
Full text of the order
Published text of the OAH order. Page headers and numbers from the original PDF have been dropped.
BEFORE THE
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
IN THE MATTER OF:
PARENTS ON BEHALF OF STUDENT,
v.
IRVINE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT.
OAH CASE NUMBER 2026050580
ORDER DETERMINING DUE PROCESS COMPLAINT
SUFFICIENT
MAY 27, 2026
On May 13, 2026, Student filed a Due Process Hearing Request, called a complaint, with the Office of Administrative Hearings, referred to as OAH, naming Irvine Unified School District. On May 27, 2026, Irvine filed a Notice of Insufficiency as to the complaint. On May 27, 2026, Student filed a response to Irvine’s notice of insufficiency.
Student’s response was not considered in this determination of sufficiency.
APPLICABLE LAW
The named parties have the right to challenge the complaint’s sufficiency.
(20 U.S.C. § 1415(b) & (c).) The party filing the complaint is not entitled to a hearing unless the complaint meets the requirements of title 20 United States Code section 1415(b)(7)(A).
A complaint is sufficient if it: (1) describes the problem relating to the proposed change regarding the Student’s identification, evaluation, or educational placement, or providing the Student a free appropriate public education; (2) includes facts about the problem; and (3) includes a proposed resolution to the extent known and available to the party at the time. (20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(7)(A)(ii)(III) & (IV).) These requirements prevent vague and confusing complaints, and promote fairness by providing the named parties with sufficient information to know how to prepare for the hearing and how to participate in resolution sessions and mediation. (See H.R.Rep. No. 108-77, 1st Sess.
(2003), p. 115; Sen. Rep. No. 108-185, 1st Sess. (2003), pp. 34-35.)
The complaint provides enough information when it provides “an awareness and understanding of the issues forming the basis of the complaint.” (Sen. Rep. No. 108- 185, supra, at p. 34.) The pleading requirements should be liberally construed in light of the broad remedial purposes of the IDEA and the relative informality of the due process hearings it authorizes. (Alexandra R. ex rel. Burke v. Brookline School Dist. (D.N.H., Sept.
10, 2009, CIV. 06-CV-0215-JL) 2009 WL 2957991[nonpub. Opn.]; Escambia County Bd. Of Educ. V. Benton (S.D. Ala. 2005) 406 F.Supp.2d 1248, 1259-1260; Sammons v. Polk County School Bd. (M.D. Fla., Oct. 28, 2005, 8:04CV2657T24EAJ) 2005 WL 2850076 [nonpub. Opn.]; but cf. M.S.-G v. Lenape Regional High School Dist. Bd. Of Educ. (3d Cir.
2009) 306 Fed.Appx. 772, 775 [nonpub. Opn.].) Whether the complaint is sufficient is a matter within the sound discretion of the Administrative Law Judge. (Assistance to States for the Educ. Of Children with Disabilities & Preschool Grants for Children with Disabilities (Aug. 14, 2006) 71 FR 46,540-46541, 46699.)
DISCUSSION
Irvine challenged Student’s issue three on the grounds it did not identify the specific IEPs that Student is challenging. Student’s issue three is challenging Student’s current placement during the 2025-2026 school year. Student provided sufficient information to put Irvine on notice to participate in the resolution session and mediation. Student’s complaint identifies the issues and adequate facts about the problem to permit Irvine to respond and participate in a resolution session and mediation. Student’s complaint is sufficient.
ORDER
1. The complaint is sufficient under title 20 United States Code section
1415(b)(7)(A)(ii).
2. All mediation, prehearing conference, and hearing dates in this matter are
confirmed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Tiffany Gilmartin Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings